|
steinrokkan posted:A sad day for the freedom of poor, oppressed imperialists everywhere. Well it was certainly a sad day for those Cuban exiles stuck on that beach. As far as imperialism goes, it is usually going to lead to oppression and violence...it also isn't going to end and doesn't come from just one side.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is it usually explainable with enough knowledge of history and economics, you can say a society is facing pressures and is going into a more authoritarian direction...but they are in the end you know, people. If anything a competent understanding of history will show you that people placed in similar circumstances will often act in the same way including on a societal level. I'm not sure how knowing the origins of a person's paranoia and psychotic behavior makes them less of an mental health issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:IMHO the Americans should take over Cuba because it is a strategic hub in an American sphere of influence, and truly the American people are suffering from not having a control of Cuban ports. Just think of the anxiety the missile crisis caused the American public. Clearly the US is justified if they decide to invade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I'm not sure how knowing the origins of a person's paranoia and psychotic behavior makes them less of an mental health issue. An entire society cannot be psychotic, I am sorry, and that includes the Germans during the 1930s-1940s. Orange Devil posted:Just think of the anxiety the missile crisis caused the American public. Clearly the US is justified if they decide to invade. Was blockading Cuba justified? (According to nearly all American interpretations it was.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:An entire society cannot be psychotic, I am sorry, and that includes the Germans during the 1930s-1940s. quote:Was blockading Cuba justified? (According to nearly all American interpretations it was.) So you are essentially assuming that the people of each state are blindly nationalist and conformist, and that they should be excused, if not commended for being so. Also you are somehow postulating that an opposition to Russian foreign policy is racist because CLEARLY people assume all Russians are a hivemind or something, and are totally not talking about Russian government only. You are not responding to Eric Garland here, so cut it out with this bullshit. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Germans in the 30s were just anxious, and it was the liberals' and West's fault that they didn't make concessions to the Nazi party fast enough. Hmmm that might be a bit of a strawman. quote:So you are essentially assuming that the people of each state are blindly nationalist and conformist, and that they should be excused, if not commended for being so. What? quote:Also you are somehow postulating that an opposition to Russian foreign policy is racist because CLEARLY people assume all Russians are a hivemind or something, and are totally not talking about Russian government only. You are not responding to Eric Garland here, so cut it out with this bullshit. Yeah...I guess, I will just have to leave you screaming at the walls because you clearly are not actually going to be engaging me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If anything part of it simply geopolitical momentum since those structures were designed to counter the Soviets, and honestly make not work or make sense if out an eastern threat of their borders to play against. No, the EEC wasn't founded to counter the Soviets. That's what the Western European Union was for, as a European addition to NATO. I don't think it was ever very effective. The EEC was founded to make war within Europe impossible by promoting economic integration through a common market; it did not go any further because European leaders were simply not prepared to back further political integration. If you look at what the actual Treaty of Rome says, you'll find that it does not contain any legal structures or institutions that could in any significant way 'counter the Soviets' , unless of course the Soviets were scared off by the possibility of free movement of services. Ironically, De Gaulle at the time though he might be able to use the EEC as an economic bloc to counter the USA instead, but he never got West Germany to go along with him. For the point that the EU might not make sense without an Eastern threat to be countered, I'll just note that institutions are subject to change. Like I wrote in response to Shibawanko a few pages back: Pluskut Tukker posted:Because what the EU (or really, the EEC) was founded for in 1957 is perfectly irrelevant for what kind of institution it is today; time and again, politicians have used the EU for their own needs or reformed it to suit their collective purpose, on top of all the unintended consequences resulting from the EU's laws and institutions. And now we have a trend where American foreign policy is more interested in Asia (as under Obama) or in (Mind you, the Soviets at the time too were confused about what sort of institution the EEC was, and debated it extensively.) Pluskut Tukker fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Hmmm that might be a bit of a strawman. There is nothing to engage, except "Did you know Russians are actual people? That makes everything they do OK, even if it includes invading countries, murdering civilians, etc." Ardennes posted:Hmmm that might be a bit of a strawman. Maybe Poland shouldn't have been hoarding Baltic ports if they didn't want to get genocided. The Germans were just being pragmatic, and you can't write their motivations off as merely psychotic - irrational. Ardennes posted:What? A government declaring something justified doesn't make it so, and also there's a strong hint of "You are Americans, so clearly you must support American imperialism in your posts" steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Steinrokkan isn't really somebody to take seriously judging from his like 5 probations for racist poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Steinrokkan isn't really somebody to take seriously judging from his like 5 probations for racist poo poo Thank you, probations expert, I never should have insulted the poor WASP Trumpist's ethnicity. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Steinrokkan isn't really somebody to take seriously judging from his like 5 probations for racist poo poo I'm starting to think his call for Russian genocide might be a bit hyperbolic
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:No, the EEC wasn't founded to counter the Soviets. That's what the Western European Union was for, as a European addition to NATO. I don't think it was ever very effective. Tying Western Europe together, especially at the same time the Bretton Woods system to place was pretty obviously a way to counter Comecon. It doesn't have to actually say this in the text of the treaty to do so (also most treaties don't actually state their literal geopolitical purpose). Integrating Western Europe while most of it was already especially was tied to the US dollar made sense. Also De Gaulle was both hostile to American influence, and explicitly anti-communist. The West Germans knew they needed American cooperation and assistance more than the French did. The issue with utilizing the EU to counter Russia is that many EU nations are purposefully neutral and while they may go along with some sanctions, that might be the limit of their interest. steinrokkan posted:There is nothing to engage, except "Did you know Russians are actual people? That makes everything they do OK, even if it includes invading countries, murdering civilians, etc." Honestly, I think you are trying to "get down to the mat" with strawmen because you honestly have nothing left to say. In the case of the Nazis, most of what they were doing wasn't "pragmatic," but neither was the entire population psychotic. The issue with "imperialism" is pretending it only exists when it is useful rhetorically. I could also be talking about French or hell modern-day Chinese imperialism as well. Btw, I also don't think French people or Chinese people are psychotic. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue with "imperialism" is pretending it only exists when it is useful rhetorically. I could also be talking about the British and French or hell modern-day China as well. Look into any thread in DnD that concerns American foreign policy, and tell me where exactly somebody defends Western aggressivity. Your whole shtick is coming into threads, telling people that both sides are bad, and that if you cut Americans / NATO some slack, you need to cut Russia some slack as well, as if opposition to Western imperialism weren't pretty much the universal position in here. Cutting Russia slack in this case would be hypocritical. Now, a popular retort is "the expansion of NATO and EU eastwards was an act of imperialism that gets a free pass by the critics of Russia, and this introduces an element of asymmetry into their analysis", but that was initiated by the will of the Eastern European nations, it was not imposed on them. Allowing these countries to pick their alignment and allies without the shadow of Russian reprisals hanging over them was the first they were free of imperial influence in decades. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
And we're all very happy you get to have your own country now, but I still don't see how that makes those american tanks not american tanks. Like, I dunno about anything else but you can't really be of the opinion that's actually just a neutral act the Russians have absolutely no business reacting to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
No wait, that is actually your opinion. Nevermind, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Was blockading Cuba justified? (According to nearly all American interpretations it was.) No. Americans are very frequently wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
What should the EU do in retaliation for this blatant act of imperialism then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
I mean, personally I think Cuba needs American tank ro safeguard its sovereignty against Russian imperialism
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Look into any thread in DnD that concerns American foreign policy, and tell me where exactly somebody defends Western aggressivity. Your whole shtick is coming into threads, telling people that both sides are bad, and that if you cut Americans / NATO some slack, you need to cut Russia some slack as well, as if opposition to Western imperialism weren't pretty much the universal position in here. Cutting Russia slack in this case would be hypocritical. I would say there is if anything a tendency to forget history before 2014, and pretend this was all just situational with Putin. If anything talking about the West or the Cold War is usually just cast off as "Whataboutism." quote:Now, a popular retort is "the expansion of NATO and EU eastwards was an act of imperialism that gets a free pass by the critics of Russia, and this introduces an element of asymmetry into their analysis", but that was initiated by the will of the Eastern European nations, it was not imposed on them. Allowing these countries to pick their alignment and allies without the shadow of Russian reprisals hanging over them was the first they were free of imperial influence in decades. Yeah, thats fine and everything, but it is quite obvious the Russians will have their own perspective and responses to that because with NATO comes the overwhelming might of the United States including its ABM systems and nuclear arsenal. That is the issue here. You can say these countries should have a right to self-determination and everything but the Russians know they are going to lose if they just sit and do nothing. Also, the Russians know they don't have the economic might of the US and if it comes down to economic pull, they will almost certainly lose. Btw, the Russians were generally fairly passive to NATO expansion until it came to the issue of Ukraine itself which is the point they were willing to go to war. Orange Devil posted:No. Americans are very frequently wrong. To be clear, I mean the blockade during the Missile Crisis not the embargo itself but either way. Most Americans would say basically we aren't going to allow Soviet SRBM missiles 30 miles off our coast and that it was a geopolitical red-line that needed to be responded to (that said the US had just put SRBMs in Turkey so it was hypocritical...the public at large didn't know that). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
lollontee posted:What should the EU do in retaliation for this blatant act of imperialism then? The EU should have an arms length relationship with the US at best, imo. Ardennes posted:To be clear, I mean the blockade during the Missile Crisis not the embargo itself but either way. Most Americans would say basically we aren't going to allow Soviet SRBM missiles 30 miles off our coast and that it was a geopolitical red-line that needed to be responded to (that said the US had just put SRBMs in Turkey so it was hypocritical...the public at large didn't know that). Yeah, well, most Americans are pretty dumb and/or heavily under the influence of massive amounts of propaganda. The US deciding who Cuba could or could not ally with and what forms this takes within it's own national borders is exactly as bad as Russia doing the same with respect to Ukraine. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah, well, most Americans are pretty dumb and/or heavily under the influence of massive amounts of propaganda. Orange Devil posted:The US deciding who Cuba could or could not ally with and what forms this takes within it's own national borders is exactly as bad as Russia doing the same with respect to Ukraine. And yet, the russian decision to give nukes to cuba to safeguard their national sovereignty was the closest our species has come to nuclear holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Reading all that apologism for Russia's aggression really makes me feel for eastern European countries and their concerns. It's a really terrifying situation hearing people who sit safely at a cozy distance from Russia talk about you like a piece of meat and whether it's worth it to defend you from invasion. For now, the majority of us are still on your side and would honor the EU defense treaty, but yeah, maybe think about a nuclear program or something for the mid to long term future
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The US deciding who Cuba could or could not ally with and what forms this takes within it's own national borders is exactly as bad as Russia doing the same with respect to Ukraine. That is the entire is you can say that but in reality, any power is going to fight that type of encroachment even if it is hypocritical. I guess you could say great power politics overall is amoral, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is the entire is you can say that but in reality, any power is going to fight that type of encroachment even if it is hypocritical. I guess you could say great power politics overall is amoral, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. Wouldn't necessarely? How isn't that a total no-brainer? Even lollontee isn't claiming any of this poo poo is moral, he's just sidestepping it by claiming morality doesn't matter. This is what I meant when I told you you appear to be coming at this discussion from a position sympathetic to empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Being against nuclear apocalypse is russian apologism
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:This is what I meant when I told you you appear to be coming at this discussion from a position sympathetic to empire. Debate optics alert, poster feeling dangerous sympathy for the bad guys
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Wouldn't necessarely? How isn't that a total no-brainer? I am coming from the position that empire is the result of when humans have power over others, and unless you take humans out of the equation (we will see the way things are going), imperialism and empire will be apart of our existence. The important part is looking the ins and outs of that history and maybe stop a nuclear war (also...even if you don't care about humans, nuclear winter would be an extinction-level event for most of the world's ecosystems.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
I'm all for preventing nuclear war and that's why I support the establishment of the new NATO rapid response force. If we can repel polite green man invasions of EU or NATO territory fast enough, before they can dig in, it will limit the risk of a conflict escalation. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Uh, what would count as an escalation in your book then if not directly engaging russian troops in combat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Finland has constantly compromised with Russia for over a century -> Happiest country in the world. Ukraine has not compromised with Russia -> Poverty and civil war. The results speak for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
they're just biding their time, waiting to strike at the moment we least expect it
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Most Americans would say basically we aren't going to allow Soviet SRBM missiles 30 miles off our coast and that it was a geopolitical red-line that needed to be responded to (that said the US had just put SRBMs in Turkey so it was hypocritical...the public at large didn't know that). The people are dumb, and the governments should be held accountable for keeping them as such, whether they are Russian or American or British. Anyway, a salient point that gets kinda lost in this is that Russia too has its tanks parked on its territory, and that's absolutely OK. They are allowed to defend themselves. Hell, they are allowed to even work with their allies, Belarus or Central Asian republics. Those are perfectly legitimate exercises of sovereignty, and whenever those exercises raise a wave of jingoism in the West, that's not acceptable and should be countered with level headedness. But the necessary corollary is that Russia must then expect the other nations to station their troops and their allies within their territory as well, and shouldn't take it as acts of undue hostility, or as a blank check to start occupying / violating foreign territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Uh, what would count as an escalation in your book then if not directly engaging russian troops in combat? A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The people are dumb, and the governments should be held accountable for keeping them as such, whether they are Russian or American or British. The issue obviously is that the US and NATO has an over-whelming technological and economic advantage not to mention ABM systems and nukes. Russia by being passive is almost certainly put in a significantly weaker position, likewise, Russia would be forced to react if heavy numbers of NATO troops were placed in the Baltic states. The Russians are not going to give up just because you try to sandbag them, they are going to fight harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The people are dumb, and the governments should be held accountable for keeping them as such, whether they are Russian or American or British. Russia does not have tanks parked in countries neighbouring America. The last time they tried to do that, America almost lit the world on fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue obviously is that the US and NATO has an over-whelming technological and economic advantage not to mention ABM systems and nukes. Russia by being passive is almost certainly put in a significantly weaker position, likewise, Russia would be forced to react if heavy numbers of NATO troops were placed in the Baltic states. The one thing I will concede is that the American efforts to invent a "cure" for nuclear deterrence are terrible, and give Russia a reason to be paranoid up to a point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Russia does not have tanks parked in countries neighbouring America. The last time they tried to do that, America almost lit the world on fire. They have tanks in countries bordering on NATO and EU. Neighboring countries which are on their own much more defenseless than Russia. VVVV Also independent Ukraine kept surrendering to Russian terms on economic treaties, yet it still wasn't enough. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
kikkelivelho posted:Finland has constantly compromised with Russia for over a century -> Happiest country in the world. That's very disingenious and completely disregards that the history between Russia and Ukraine and Russia and Finland is very different and Russia's interests in one is very different from another. Also one of the first things independent Ukraine did was compromise with Russia. Surrendered their inherited nuclear arsenal in return for Russian guarantees and aid and allowed them to lease the Sevastopol base. Should have held on to those nukes. Wish the Western Allies had just told Stalin to go hog wild on Finland. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Mar 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It would deescalate by presenting Russia with a choice between an actual invasion after they had already been repulsed by NATO forces, or going "Oh, our bad, seems like we had a problem with GLONASS". The existence of such a force would also discourage that kind of stuff from happening in the first place, reducing the risk of Russian tourism and a rapid descent into all-out war. I don't even know what the gently caress an all-out war with Russia would look like. They don't have the equipment, troop numbers or logistics to launch any large scale invasion of NATO territory(nor do they want to) and NATO is not prepared to go into Russia either(nor do we want to). I guess a limited air war and artillery fire exchange on the border would happen? Can some qualified armchair general come over here and explain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Russian aviation is rusted over and their only plane carrier is in shambles, they have like 2 strat bombers and 3 sukhois left that are airworthy. Now, russia is also a 100+ million people country, so a mobilization could amass a good amount of bodies, but they'd be wielding assault rifles in combat with drones and mechanized infantry. Meanwhile, EU/non-US NATO standing army is also a loving joke and can in no way afford an invasion of a land mass bigger than isle of man, and Trump would probably say "many sides" a lot, so yeah, the end result would be probably launching rockets and artillery shells over a border line and losing a bunch of lives for no clear reason. If some dumbfuck escalated poo poo to nukes it's anyone's guess, but the chances of that happening are probably close enough to 0 to not matter much. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2018 16:38
|
|
